alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John H. Grommes and another *vs.*Clara L. Shute.

May 12, 1891.

Appeal — Order Granting New Trial on the Evidence. — Buie laid down in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 398, (434,) applied, and order granting a new trial affirmed.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, *Brill,*J., presiding, setting asidé, as against evidence, a verdict in their favor of $460.92, and granting a new trial.

*Hiler H. Horton,*for appellants.

*L. S. Cotton*and *I. V.*D. *Heard,*for respondent. ■

Mitchell, J.

Under the rule laid down in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 398, (434,) which has been always, inflexibly adhered to and applied by this court, there is no ground for interfering with the action of the trial court in granting a new trial in this case. An examination of the record not only fails to satisfy us that the preponderance of the evidence was manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, but, on the contrary, convinces us that the discretion of the trial court was wisely exercised.

Order affirmed.
# C_2021242EN.01003002.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Linde Material Handling v EUIPO — Verti Aseguradora (VertiLight)

(Case T-644/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VertiLight - Earlier national word mark VERTI - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - No link between the marks at issue - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Linde Material Handling GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, and Linde Material Handling.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Linde Material Handling GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Linde Material Handling GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
# C_2021028EN.01005001.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/50

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2020 — PL v Commission

(Case T-728/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a decision to reassign within the Commission in the interests of the service - Partial refusal of access - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis)

(2021/C 28/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PL (represented by: J.-N. Louis and J. Van Rossum, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier, I. Melo Sampaio and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 13 August and 26 September 2019 refusing in part the disclosure of the documents requested by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | PL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

PL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         713
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,091
<INVENTORY>                                    31,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,182
<PP&E>                                         48,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,773
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,233
<OTHER-SE>                                     (37,030)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,624
<SALES>                                        50,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               50,375
<CGS>                                          42,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  42,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,684)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   76
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,760)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,760)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Prakash Agarwal, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended July 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained insuch Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Prakash Agarwal     |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Prakash Agarwal         |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|        |        |                         |        |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,954
<SECURITIES>                                   121,544
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,117
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,086
<PP&E>                                          38,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Periodic Report
  (1)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 4, 2008
 /s/ Mary T. MinchName:
    Mary T. MinchTitle:
    Senior Vice President-Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
# C_2019312EN.01000301.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA and Others v Roma Capitale and Others

(Case C-368/19)

(2019/C 312/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA and Lindam Srl

Respondents: Roma Capitale, Regione Lazio, Vodafone Italia SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA and Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 8(6) of legge 22 febbraio 2001, n. 36 (Law No 36 of 22 February 2001), which is understood and applied as allowing individual local authorities to define siting criteria for mobile telephone apparatus, which may be expressed in the form of prohibitions, such as a prohibition on placing antennae in specific areas or within a certain distance of a certain type of building?

---
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies
in his capacity as an officer of ITLA Capital Corporation (the Company) that this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in
the financial statements included in such report. Date: March 16, 2005
    /s/   George W. HaligowskiGeorge W. HaligowskiChairman of the Board,
President and
Chief Executive Officer Date: March 16, 2005
    /s/   Timothy M. DoyleTimothy M. DoyleSenior Managing Director and
Chief Financial Officer This certification accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. 84
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-306) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Frank Davis filed a document he described as a petition for new trial and to compel specific performance. The district court appropriately construed this as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Davis , No. CR-97-306 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2001 & entered Apr. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2020045EN.01002401.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2019 — QF v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-816/19)

(2020/C 45/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QF

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Does a trade union organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
#### Chitty *v.*Tisdale.

*M andamus.*

(Decided Jan. 23, 1908.

45 South. 587.)

*Jwy; Attendance a/nd Compensation; Special Jwors; Compensation.*— A special juror attending ' court upon summons for one day is entitled to compensation for his attendance, although discharged without *being*sworn as a juror.

Appeal from Butler Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson.

Mandamus by G. A. Chitty against S. L. Tisdale, as clerk of the circuit court, to compel him to issue a certificate of attendance upon court. From a judgment denying the writ, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and judgment rendered granting the writ.

Hamilton & Crumpton, for appellant.

Counsel contend that the proper construction of section 4850 and 4851, Code 1896, is that a juror summoned for the trial of a capital case is entitled to his mileage and per diem pay, if he attends, although he is not sworn as a juror.

No counsel marked for appellee.

SIMPSON, J.

-This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court denying an application for a writ of *247mandamus to be issued to the appellee as clerk of the circuit court.

The appellant was summoned as a special juror to attend court. He obeyed said summons, and attended court one day, but -was discharged without being sworn in as a juror, as the case in which he was summoned was continued. He made the proper affidavit, and the clerk issued to him a certificate for the number of miles traveled, but refused to issue any certificate for his attendance at the court one day. Sections 4580 and 4581 of the Code of 1896 provide that regular jurors shall be entitled to $2 for each day’s service, and that special jurors shall be entitled to the “same compensation for their attendance.” The statute seems to have been worded carefully, for the purpose of showing that the special juror shall not be deprived of his compensation by the mere fact that he is not sworn in as a juror. He attends court, and is required to remain there until he is discharged. It takes as much of his time as if he were sworn in, and he is as much subject to the orders of the court as a juror on the regular panel who does not happen to be called on to sit in a case during that day. There is no reason why he should not be entitled to his compensation.

The judgment of the court is reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered granting the writ as prayed.

Reversed and rendered.

Tyson, O. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.
# C_2019172EN.01004601.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/46

---

Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-188/19)

(2019/C 172/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, Agent, T. Johnston and J. Scott, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision to adopt the Final Audit Report, Audit Reference Number 14-BA262-013, as final, as notified to the United Kingdom Government by letter dated 20 December 2018 and received on 21 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision to adopt the Final Audit Report, Audit Reference Number 14-BA262-013, as final, as notified to the United Kingdom Government by letter dated 20 December 2018 and received on 21 January 2019;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Auditors erred in law in finding that daily timesheets were required and, in doing so, misinterpreted the Grant Agreements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Auditors erred in law in finding that daily timesheets were required and, in doing so, misinterpreted the Grant Agreements.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements.

---
Exhibit 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Lam Sai Wing, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the
Quarterly Report of S.W. Lam, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of S.W. Lam, Inc.


                                    By: /s/ Lam Sai Wing
                                       ----------------------------
                                    Name: Lam Sai Wing
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                    November 21, 2002

I, Chan Yam Fai, Jane, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the
Quarterly Report of S.W. Lam, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of S.W. Lam, Inc.


                                    By:  /s/ Chan Yam Fai, Jane
                                       ------------------------------
                                    Name: Chan Yam Fai, Jane
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                    November 21, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David VELASCO-CASTANEDA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-50360.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Robert Steven Huie, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brendan Michael Hickey, Law Offices of Brendan Hickey, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Velasco-Castaneda appeals from his conviction for importation of marijuana and hashish, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s finding that a *Miranda*waiver is knowing and intelligent, *United States v. Garibay,*143 F.3d 534, 536 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Velasco-Castaneda contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to *317suppress and found that he knowingly and intelligently waived his *Miranda*rights before making incriminating statements.

Velasco-Castaneda is fluent in English, his rights were individually read to him, and he verbally and physically indicated he understood each right. While there is no written waiver, nothing in the record suggests Velasco-Castaneda suffered from any incapacity that prevented him from understanding the nature of his rights or the consequences of waiving them. *See United States v. Crews,*502 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, the district court’s determinations that Velasco-Cas-taneda’s questions demonstrated his understanding that he had the right not to speak, and that he waived that right by volunteering information without the promise of a reward are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in its determination that, under the totality of the circumstances, Velasco-Castaneda made a knowing and intelligent waiver. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.